Abstract
My technical capstone project and STS research paper are connected through a shared theme of tracking technology. In my capstone, my team designed and built Cell Seeker, a portable radio-frequency (RF) direction-finding device intended to help search-and-rescue (SAR) teams locate individuals in distress by tracking the RF signals from their cellphones. In my STS research paper, I examined Hughes v. Apple, Inc., a class-action lawsuit brought by victims who were stalked using Apple AirTags, a bluetooth tracking device. By exploring both projects we examine how the same technologies that enable beneficial location tracking can also be used to surveil, monitor, or harm people without their consent.
Cell Seeker is a handheld device that locates the source of an RF transmission using phase-comparison monopulse direction finding. The system consists of four custom-designed microstrip patch antennas, two Wilkinson power combiners, a ring-hybrid coupler, a LimeSDR software-defined radio, a Raspberry Pi 4B, and an inertial measurement unit, all housed in a 3D-printed enclosure. By summing and differencing the signals received by pairs of antennas, the device produces a characteristic monopulse pattern in which vertically aligned peak and null indicate the direction of the incoming signal. A GUI running on the Raspberry Pi presents this information to the operator through an intuitive compass display. The prototype operates in the 1.24 – 1.3 GHz amateur radio band and demonstrated a measured detection range of 97 feet using a low-power test transmitter; extrapolated to a realistic cellphone transmit power of 3 W, the range exceeds a quarter mile, surpassing the team's stated performance objective.
My STS research paper analyzes Hughes v. Apple, Inc. using Langdon Winner's Technological Politics framework.. I argue that AirTags are implicitly designed to prioritize the convenience and tracking precision of device owners over the safety of non-consenting victims. The AirTag's compact size, low price point, and integration into Apple's Find My network create a technology that makes surveillance effortless for abusive users. Meanwhile, the anti-stalking protections Apple implemented are inconsistent, platform-dependent, and place the burden of self-protection on victims. I conclude that AirTag-facilitated stalking is not simply a product of fixable technical bugs but reflects a deeper political arrangement embedded in the device's design that must be addressed at the level of the technology's architecture.
Working on both projects throughout this year made me think about the ethics of building tracking devices. My team included a brief societal impact section in the Cell Seeker report acknowledging that the device could theoretically be misused for stalking. However, we reasoned that our device would only work efficiently in remote areas where stalking is less likely. At the time, this felt like a reasonable trade-off. After completing my STS research, however, I realized that my group acted in a similar manner to Apple. Even after acknowledging potential safety concerns, we still focused solely on the functionality of Cell Seeker and didn’t consider safety features. Going forward, I will approach the design of any technology with surveillance capabilities by asking not only whether a safety feature exists, but whether it provides meaningful, equitable protection to all affected parties, especially those who did not choose to be subject to the technology in the first place.
